Office of Lawyer Regulation v. John J. Pangallo
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2022 WI 108 SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN CASE NO.: 2022AP830-D COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against John J. Pangallo, Attorney at Law: Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, v. John J. Pangallo, Respondent. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PANGALLO OPINION FILED: SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: ORAL ARGUMENT: SOURCE OF APPEAL: COURT: COUNTY: JUDGE: JUSTICES: Per Curiam. NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTORNEYS: December 22, 2022 2022 WI 108 NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing and modification. The final version will appear in the bound volume of the official reports. No. 2022AP830-D STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings Against John J. Pangallo, Attorney at Law: FILED Office of Lawyer Regulation, Complainant, DEC 22, 2022 v. Sheila T. Reiff Clerk of Supreme Court John J. Pangallo, Respondent. ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license suspended. ¶1 matter. PER CURIAM. This is a reciprocal On May 17, 2022, the Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) filed a complaint and motion pursuant to (SCR) 22.22,1 1 discipline requesting this court Supreme Court Rule suspend Attorney John SCR 22.22 provides: (1) An attorney on whom public discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction shall promptly notify the director of the matter. Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the (continued) J. No. 2022AP830-D effective date of the order or judgment of the other jurisdiction constitutes misconduct. (2) Upon the receipt of a certified copy of a judgment or order of another jurisdiction imposing discipline for misconduct or a license suspension for medical incapacity of an attorney admitted to the practice of law or engaged in the practice of law in this state, the director may file a complaint in the supreme court containing all of the following: (a) A certified copy of the judgment or order from the other jurisdiction. (b) A motion requesting an order directing the attorney to inform the supreme court in writing within 20 days of any claim of the attorney predicated on the grounds set forth in sub. (3) that the imposition of the identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court would be unwarranted and the factual basis for the claim. (3) The supreme court shall impose the identical discipline or license suspension unless one or more of the following is present: (a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to constitute a deprivation of due process. (b) There was such an infirmity of proof establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that the supreme court could not accept as final the conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical incapacity, (c) The misconduct justifies different discipline in this state. substantially (4) Except as provided in sub. (3), a final adjudication in another jurisdiction that an attorney has engaged in misconduct or has a medical incapacity shall be conclusive evidence of the attorney's misconduct or medical incapacity for purposes of a proceeding under this rule. (continued) 2 No. 2022AP830-D Pangallo's license to practice law in Wisconsin for a period of three years, as reciprocal discipline identical to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Florida. ¶2 Attorney Pangallo and the OLR executed a stipulation, whereby Attorney Pangallo agrees that he should be suspended for a period of three years as discipline reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Florida. we accept the stipulation practice law in and Upon our review of the matter, suspend Wisconsin Attorney for a period Pangallo's license to of three years. Because the parties were able to resolve this matter without the need for appointment of a referee, no costs will be imposed. ¶3 Wisconsin Attorney in 1992. Pangallo His was admitted Wisconsin law to practice license is law in currently suspended for failure to comply with continuing legal education reporting requirements and for failure to pay annual bar dues. (5) The supreme court may refer a complaint filed under sub. (2) to a referee for a hearing and a report and recommendation pursuant to SCR 22.16. At the hearing, the burden is on the party seeking the imposition of discipline or license suspension different from that imposed in the other jurisdiction to demonstrate that the imposition of identical discipline or license suspension by the supreme court is unwarranted. (6) If the discipline or license suspension imposed in the other jurisdiction has been stayed, any reciprocal discipline or license suspension imposed by the supreme court shall be held in abeyance until the stay expires. 3 No. ¶4 Attorney Pangallo is also admitted to practice law in Florida. On suspended years. 2022AP830-D May 25, Attorney The 2017, the Pangallo's Florida court Supreme Florida found law that Court of license Attorney Florida for three Pangallo had withdrawn trust account funds for his own purposes, including making payments to himself and third parties. The court found those acts violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to trust accounts and safekeeping property. The Florida Court required Attorney Pangallo to complete specific continuing education courses, including a trust accounting class and ethics school, as well as serve three years of probation in the event his Florida license is reinstated. ¶5 Attorney Pangallo provided notice to the State Bar of Wisconsin of his Florida suspension, but he did not realize that was the incorrect disciplinary authority and that the OLR should have received notification. Accordingly, notice of his Florida suspension was not effective under SCR 22.22(1). ¶6 Pangallo failing In its is subject to complaint, notify to the the OLR reciprocal OLR of his alleged discipline suspension that and in Attorney that, Florida by for professional misconduct within 20 days of the effective date of its imposition, Attorney Pangallo violated SCR 22.22(1). ¶7 On September 7, 2022, Attorney Pangallo and the OLR filed a stipulation, agreeing that by virtue of his suspension, Attorney Pangallo discipline in Wisconsin. be appropriate for this is subject to Florida reciprocal Attorney Pangallo agrees that it would court 4 to suspend his Wisconsin law No. license for a period of three years. stipulation did not result from 2022AP830-D The parties state that the plea bargaining. Attorney Pangallo does not contest the facts and misconduct alleged by the OLR, and he agrees to the level of discipline sought by the OLR. Attorney Pangallo also represents and verifies that he fully understands understands the the misconduct ramifications allegations; should this court he fully impose the stipulated level of discipline; he fully understands his right to contest the matter; he fully understands his right to consult with and retain counsel; and he states that his entry into the stipulation Pangallo is also made knowingly stipulates that and he voluntarily. does not claim Attorney any of the potential defenses set forth in SCR 22.22(3)(a)–(c). ¶8 Upon stipulation our and review impose a of the matter, three-year we suspension accept of the Attorney Pangallo's Wisconsin law license, reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Court of Florida. ¶9 Because this matter was resolved by stipulation without the need for appointment of a referee, no costs are imposed. ¶10 IT IS ORDERED that the license of John J. Pangallo to practice law in Wisconsin is suspended for a period of three years, effective the date of this order. ¶11 IT suspension of IS FURTHER ORDERED that the administrative John J. Pangallo's license to practice law in Wisconsin, due to his failure to pay mandatory bar dues and failure to comply with continuing legal education requirements, 5 No. 2022AP830-D will remain in effect until each reason for the administrative suspension has been rectified, pursuant to SCR 22.28(1). ¶12 already IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, to the extent he has not done so, John J. Pangallo shall comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been suspended. 6 No. 1 2022AP830-D
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
